170bhp 1.4 Turbo vs 2.0 NASP

[obi_waynne]

Assuming both cars have the same 170bhp output and similar torque curve which would you prefer and why?

Would a Turbo Charged 1.4 be better than a 2.0 NASP? Which would be most economical to drive?

 

[Aerial Andy944]

Depends on what car the engine is in. Something like a little town car such as a Fiat 500 or Fiesta then the lil 1.4t is fine. Something like a larger Mondeo or Focus then I found the torque isn't enough to move the larger mass like a big engine can. I test drove the new 1.5t Mondeo and it was gutless until you got the turbo really spinning which killed the fuel economy so defeating the point of the smaller engine capacity.

 

[HDi fun]

I am interested in trying the 1.0 3 cylinder Mondeo Ecoboost. I don't expect it to set me on fire but I am very very curious all the same. Turbocharged engines generally have a very good useful spread of torque, I think I'd rather have a 170bhp turbo engine over a 170bhp naturally aspirated one for this reason.
I do think diesels lend themselves to turbocharging better than petrols due to their free breathing nature. For the same reason I think turbocharging lends itself to diesel rail traction even better. The turbo(s) can be set up to work optimally at full load only.

 

[Yugguy]

Depends on the car.

I'm old school - so if it was in a little hot hatch I'd want nasp every time.

 

[obi_waynne]

I was thinking that A 2.0 VTEC based engine would give a similar kick to a Turbo on a smaller engine at around the same RPM point!

It is interesting the divergence of opinion and way we choose our preferences.

I think I would go for the Turbo, as lighter engines usually make for better handling and I'm sure it would be easier to upgrade the turbo engine than it would a NASP unit considering part costs and complexity.

 

[thexav]

I'd prefer the NASP option. The engines sound better IMO.

 

[HDi fun]

Torn. I like the bark of a straight six NATASP petrol (or a V8). But turbochargers do smooth out the torque curve massively. A turbo 1.4 with 200bhp will pace happily with a 2.8 naturally aspirated engine also of 200bhp.

 

[Yugguy]

But what would you rather listen to?

 

[HDi fun]

Straight six

 

[griffindai]

Turbo baby

 

[MikeMcCarthy]

I have 2 turbo cars so I am a little biased. The TDI amazes me with the power it has and the unreal mileage . My street car is a 2387 turbo type 1 Beetle , its a blast to drive . I would definitely pick the 1.4 for the combination of fuel mileage and equal power output over the 2.0 that has to feed those horses all the time.

 

[HDi fun]

Common rail diesel (twin) turbo straight six then?? 535d Touring would suit me.

 

[crocodilesmile]

Iv owned both, 1.4 punto GT,straigh through twin DTM pipe,k&N induction kit, super chip. 170bhp. Very quick around town, but soon ran out of guts at the moment im driving a 206 gti 180, 2.0, 16v, twin janspeed pipe, green cotton panel filter, remapped 193bhp on the dino. Very thirsty but just keeps on going, sounds awesome. Although the whistle of a turbo sounds better than a $500 she rental on top.the 2.0 GTI sounds better than the ultimate milf on kitchen unit screaming for more bhp. Ultimatly fit a turbo to a 2.0 GTI . Iv seen them running at over 500bhp. In a car that small , thats just pure fun

 

[HDi fun]

In a small car that's mad I still have a liking for the low end diesel shove. Just a shame that the party is well and truly over by 5000rpm.

I need two engines I think..

 

[obi_waynne]

That's what @claymore thinks too!

 

[T9 man]

That's what @claymore thinks too!

I was thinking the same thing when I saw the bit about the two engines

 

[charger69]

I heard 1.4l engines and got in.